On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 1:10 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Matt Rogers <mattr94@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> How are you reviewing the patches in your own series before sending > >> them out? This round is better than the previous rounds where we > >> didn't have a matching change to the tests so "make test" may not > >> have passed in the middle of the series, though... > >> > > > > I went through each patch individually using rebase -i and built/tested it. > > Although just to save time I only did t1300 and t1308 since I believe those were > > the only ones that should be affected. I can write a script that > > would run the whole > > test suite overnight for me and make sure the series shakes out okay, > > if you'd like. > > What I like does not matter. > > What I pointed out for 04/10 wouldn't have been caught by your > testing anyway, as both the code and the test had matching > unnecessry changes. I was wondering if you are relying too heavily > on just tests and without actually proofreading the changes to see > if they still make sense in the context of the updated series, and > if my suspicion was correct, if there are something reviewers can do > to help the authors. > > I do try to proofread patches, I'm just not the most careful of reviewers at times, partially as a personal problem and partially as this is a new workflow for me. As for the particular issue, I just thought it was a good idea at the time and I didn't think it all the way through -- Matthew Rogers
